On Aug 1, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Timothy Redmond wrote:
>> This is clearly correct. The implementation underscores what you
> have said. It ends with a line
>> return commonSuperClasses.iterator().next();
>> Would it be useful to have getCommonSuperclasses method?
I think it would be useful.
Perhaps take a flag to return either all common superclasses or just
the most specific among them.
While I'm proposing interface extensions, it would also be nice to
have a method that takes a collection of classes and returns just the
most specific out of that list. I suppose a most general classes of
a collection might also be useful.
(These are all low priority items for me, though.)
-Tom.
> -TImothy
>>> On Jul 30, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Thomas Russ wrote:
>>> Why does OWLModel.getCommonSuperclass return only a single value?
>>>> I would think that with a general lattice structure, that this should
>> return a collection of the the most specific superclasses, since
>> there isn't necessarily a single one. Consider the following:
>>>>>>>>>> Thing
>> A
>> X
>> Y
>> B
>> X
>> Y
>>>> I would expect that the answer to the most specific common superclass
>> would be {A, B} and not arbitrarily picking one of A or B as the
>> least common superclass. Perhaps there should be a
>> getCommonSuperclasses method that returns a collection?
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>>protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu>>https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>>>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/>> faq.html#01a.03
>> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
>protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu>https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/> faq.html#01a.03